Can America be fixed?

[Binaural]

Do you have people who will vouch for you?

Alas, this suffers from the same problem as employment references: you only ask your friends to give them, and there's no obligation on the referrer to tell the absolute truth including negative information (nor is it practical to create one). Such a scheme can work if the licencing body checks the declarations in detail, which is already the case for the various levels of security clearance for handling classified information (as you mention). The responsibility for truthfulness falls on the person making the declaration. Needless to say, funding such detailed checks would make guns substantially more expensive relative to the derisory checks of today.

The "tendencies towards insurrection" comment in that article is an interesting one. Anecdotally, there seems to be quite a lot of overlap between these beliefs in gun culture:
1. That gun ownership is an absolute individual right that cannot be limited in any way
2. Owning many guns (3% of the population own half the guns, i.e. "collectors", only a quarter of the population owns a gun overall)
3. That gun ownership is primary a safeguard against an overweening government

 

[moorey]

• 4. It won't work because you haven't proposed a single way of how you want to practically achieve it. Unless you meant "hopes and dreams" in which case...it still won't work. Sorry (genuine, and genuine genuine)

Why not? ‘Hopes and Prayers’ are all that’s being sent by US politicians. It must work or they wouldn’t limit their action to this.

PS, Mark Rubio alone (Florida republican) received $3.3m us from the gun lobby in just the 2016 election cycle. Did you hear his response to the massacre? He knows which side his bread is buttered on.

 

[slowmick]

.... The responsibility for truthfulness falls on the person making the declaration. Needless to say, funding such detailed checks would make guns substantially more expensive relative to the derisory checks of today...

Would be untruthful be enough to make the person an accessory in such an event?

 

[Binaural]

Would be untruthful be enough to make the person an accessory in such an event?

No way. The most they might face would be penalties for making a false declaration, but even that would require the prosecution to establish that they knowingly (as opposed to ignorantly) stated that a particular person was of "good character".

 

[Zaf]

Removed by user

 

[Binaural]

Hanlon's Razor applies.

Just so. When you apply for a spouse visa in Australia, the wastrels who run the program require you to get several friends to write a story describing your relationship with you and affirm you're of good character. There's no validation of this whatsoever, it's just a waste of everybody's time. Criminal checks in both source and destination countries, health checks, those sort of things seem reasonable, but why should the system give a flying fuck about the unaccountable opinions of somebody's mate?

 

[Zaf]

Removed by user

 

[slowmick]

This forum teaches me lots of good stuff. Cheers.

 

[Oddjob]

Long story, but my ex ex ex ex girlfriend's mother got her sisters (the gf's Aunties) to purger themselves to fast track a permanent residency for a guy from Gambia who romance scammed her.

Character references are a bad joke, and completely irrelevant to most processes in which they apply.

I'm sure there's a joke about a bread box in this story somewhere.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

 

[Zaf]

Removed by user

 

[Oddjob]

Is that a reference to a yeast infection? If so, I'm glad I can't confirm such details.
But there was a sold house, a marriage in another country that was hidden from the family, property bought in other countries under his name, all this African crap for a failed business plan, and 50 other women on every continent in the world discovered through a keylogged e-mail account and a final confrontation with another woman in the SAME CITY!!!!

But yeah, character references count for about jack shit.

No, a reference from The Office about black cocks...

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

 

[johnny]

In case there was any need for a measure as to how toxic things are getting in the USA:

https://www.theage.com.au/world/nor...-at-conspiracy-theorists-20180222-p4z16s.html

 

[Dozer]

In case there was any need for a measure as to how toxic things are getting in the USA:

https://www.theage.com.au/world/nor...-at-conspiracy-theorists-20180222-p4z16s.html

Far out, thats some seriously immature shit going on right there, pretty disgraceful.

 

[Binaural]

In case there was any need for a measure as to how toxic things are getting in the USA:/QUOTE]

This is beyond toxic, this is delusion masquerading as legitimate political debate with no consequences.

 

[johnny]

I believe almost all of the weapons used in the incidents provided started out their lives as legally owned and purchased. Is that correct?

So I had a little bit of time on my hands today and I figured that I'd go back and check how my memory fared regards these cases and some research I did just after the Lindt Siege for work purposes. Here's what I found:

1 - The Monash University shootings - the shooter was licensed to hold the weapons he used to commit the murders - https://web.archive.org/web/2004091...ews/politics/2002/10/item20021023002157_1.htm

2 - Hectorville - weapon was legally owned before being taken and used by the killer - http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...s/news-story/7d8cd40d20bbb2fd7773934ef7109335

3 - Hunt family shootings - unable to find any information on the legality of the weapon and licensing of the murderer

Because of the above two grey areas I looked for another incident around the same era with similar circumstances and I found the Wedderburn shootings

4 - Wedderburn shootings - the weapon was legally owned, the killer was licensed to hold such weapon - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-...amily-make-emotional-gun-control-plea/5838614

5 - Lindt Siege - Monis was not licensed to carry a firearm after 2000 (prior to that he was licensed). The bullets he used were between 15 - 20 years old and the shotgun he used was over 50 years old and untraceable. The Coroner's report stated that the weapon may well have been imported into Australia legally and entered the grey market when not handed back during the buy-back scheme (have to note that it may well have been imported illegally, impossible to tell) https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/170215_Martin_Place_Siege_Review_1.pdf

6 - Port Arthur massacre - Bryant purchased the weapon from a legal owner of the firearm. He was supposed to show a license for purchase but claims that he did not - https://au.news.yahoo.com/sunday-night/a/31076116/bryant-port-arthur-wouldnt-have-happened/


Conclusions:

1 case inconclusive out of lack of evidence based on internet searches.
1 case is inconclusive with the type of firearm in question previously legal
4 cases show a situation where the gun was legally owned prior to being used illegally

4 of the cases show a person that was previously a 'law abiding' person - these are people who have no criminal record for violent acts, theft, robbery or anything that I could uncover - became criminals by their act of carrying out a mass shooting. Some of them are noted for being model citizens like the killer in the Hunt family murders. Man Monis was a known criminal under numerous investigations. In one case the gun owner was a law abiding citizen and were found to have stored their weapons legally.


Outcomes:

Using this small amount of cases, based on the suggestion of an anti-gun control advocate, it can be shown that in the majority of cases the firearms used in mass killings including and since Port Arthur were originally 'legal' - that is purchased and owned legally by a licensed or legal owner.

Secondly, this small sample shows that people who are otherwise law abiding citizens only become criminals by way of carrying out mass shootings. That would suggest that to argue law abiding citizens are punished for the acts of a few criminals is erroneous given that those few criminals were law abiding citizens up until the very moment they carried out a mass shooting. This suggests that law abiding citizens can be just as risky and dangerous to the general society when armed as a known criminal.

And finally, it suggests that my original question was not based on any bias but on an accurate memory based on prior research. This would then suggest that there is room for the argument that the disproportionate and overwhelming response to my question was, in actual fact, an indication of strong bias or an absolute misreading of my intention based on the lack of tone in written text. This is even more interesting given that the disproportionate response to my question was prefaced with a claim of respect given that the following words would be forceful and may be misread due to the lack of tone in text.

 

[Tubbsy]

Malcolm Naden shot a police officer (albeit not fatally) with a legally owned .22 rifle he stole from a remote property during his famous seven years on the run from the law.

Not necessarily relevant to mass shootings, but if more advanced weaponry was prevalent in Oz it's not a stretch to imagine him using it to its full capacity.

 

[Zaf]

Removed by user

 

[pink poodle]

Things be heated. Where's the popcorn machine? Fuck I'm hungry! Am I?

 

[johnny]

@johnny remember when I said this "you can at least pretend you're interested in actually finding the answer regardless of its outcome instead of overtly trying to justify your position."?
I wasn't being cute, I was forewarning you about the potential to create a confirmation bias. That's where interpret, recall or favour information in a way that confirms your pre-existing beliefs or hypothesis.

But I'm guessing that wouldn't be made clear to you, even if it were spelled out in ten foot high braille. See that, that's "ad hominem", because I've attacked your person (by implying you're a bit slow in the head) and not your argument. Me explaining it to you, or moreso the assumption that you'll consistently fail to understand me; that's me being patronising, because you've done everything in your power to deserve it.

Get better data sets, don't cherry pick your argument, don't proceed with logical fallacies you've been warned against.

Ha.

It was your data set, you picked it. I asked a simple question about that data set that I was pretty sure was correct, based on my previous reading. There was no bias, it was just a simple question and I was right. You can spin it all you want and you can continue to attack me personally (that's twice now), but it will never defeat the fact that you raised a question, I answered it accurately and you don't like the outcome.

Anyway, you're not an honest discussant, as much as you wish you were and that's why I'm not going any further than the original question I asked, which was that alomst all of the firearms and shooters in the incidents you raised were legally owned by non-crims. And as I thought, they were.

Thanks for laughs.

 

[Zaf]

Removed by user